Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-103 (2026)
Theft of property
✓ current as of May 2026
- (a) A person commits theft of property if, with intent to deprive the owner of property, the person knowingly obtains or exercises control over the property without the owner's effective consent.
- (b)
- (1) As a condition of pretrial diversion, judicial diversion, probation or parole for a violation of subsection (a) when the violation occurs as set out in subdivision (b)(2), the person may be required to perform debris removal, clean-up, restoration, or other necessary physical labor at a location within the area affected by the disaster or emergency that is in the county where the offense occurred.
- (2) The condition of pretrial diversion, judicial diversion, probation or parole containing the requirement set out in subdivision (b)(1) may be used if the violation of subsection (a) occurs:
- (A) During or within thirty (30) days following the occurrence of a tornado, flood, fire, or other disaster or emergency, as defined in § 58-2-101;
- (B) Within the area affected by the disaster or emergency; and
- (C) When, as a result of the disaster or emergency, the owner of the property taken, or the person charged with custody of the property, is unable to adequately guard, secure or protect the property from theft.
- (3) Subdivision (b)(2) shall apply regardless of whether a state of emergency has been declared by a county, the governor, or the president of the United States at the time of or subsequent to the theft.
- (4) Any period of physical labor required pursuant to subdivision (b)(1) shall not exceed the maximum sentence authorized pursuant to § 39-14-105.
Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 1; 2011, ch. 322, § 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 898
cases (102 in the last 5 years), 1993–2026 · leading case: State v. Gentry, 538 S.W.3d 413 (Tenn. 2017).
State v. Gentry, 538 S.W.3d 413 (Tenn. 2017). “" Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-103 (2014 & 2017 Supp.”
State of Tennessee v. Perry A. March, 293 S.W.3d 576 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2008). “” T.C.A. § 39-14-103 (1991). Theft is a Class C felony “if -9- the value of the property .”
State v. Owens, 20 S.W.3d 634 (Tenn. 2000). “There is ample evidence, however, to support a conviction of theft under Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-103 . Thus, we vacate the robbery conviction and modify the defendant’s conviction to theft as defined in Tenn.”
State v. Roberts, 943 S.W.2d 403 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996). “As required by the theft of property statute, T.C.A. § 39-14-103, the indictments for attempted theft each allege that the defendant attempted to obtain and exercise control over property, i.”
State v. Sutton, 166 S.W.3d 686 (Tenn. 2005). “§§ 39-14-103, -105 (1997). On January 28, 2003, an order of nolle prosequi was entered as to one of the counts of theft.”
State of Tennessee v. Jonathan David Patterson, 564 S.W.3d 423 (Tenn. 2018). “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-103 (2018) (defining theft of property); Tenn.”
State v. Lewter, 313 S.W.3d 745 (Tenn. 2010). “Justice claimed to have no memory of the break-in due to intoxication, but pleaded guilty to burglary in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-14-402 2 and theft in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-14-103. 3 The defendant was indicted and convicted of…”
State v. Byrd, 968 S.W.2d 290 (Tenn. 1998). “We granted this appeal to address the validity of an indictment that aggregates, under Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-14-103, the value of stolen property belonging to different owners.”
State v. James, 315 S.W.3d 440 (Tenn. 2010). “is much more widely accepted without qualification or corroborating evidence” than is the inference that the possessor actually committed the theft “because the inference of mere knowledge is a much more likely one.” Cosby v. Jones, 682 F.2d 1373, 1381 (11th Cir.”
State v. Ball, 973 S.W.2d 288 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-14-103. The trial court imposed a sentence of three years with six months to be served in jail followed by placement in the Community Corrections *291 Program.”
State v. Lewis, 36 S.W.3d 88 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2000). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-14-103 (1997). In pertinent part, an offense is lesser-ineluded within a greater offense if “all of its elements are included within the statutory elements of the offense charged.”
State of Tennessee v. Carl J. Wagner, 382 S.W.3d 289 (Tenn. 2012). “” Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-14-103 (2010). The crux of the Court of Criminal Appeals’ holding that the evidence is insufficient to support the defendant’s conviction of especially aggravated robbery is its statement that “no evidence corroborates the defendant’s confession concerning…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-103(2006) — 2 cases
State of Tennessee v. William Franklin Robinette (Tenn. Crim. App. 2012).
State of Tennessee v. John Jackson (Tenn. Crim. App. 2014).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-103(a) — 160 cases
State of Tennessee v. Susan Renee Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012).
State of Tennessee v. Travis Kinte Echols, 382 S.W.3d 266 (Tenn. 2012).
State of Tennessee v. Mark Anthony McNack, 356 S.W.3d 906 (Tenn. 2011).
State of Tennessee v. Marcus Pope, 427 S.W.3d 363 (Tenn. 2013).
State of Tennessee v. Antonio Henderson, 531 S.W.3d 687 (Tenn. 2017).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.